No BS, your logic is very illogical.
1. There are no agreements that the stock being bought back will be at the price it was offered. There is talk of one agreement but none of the other conversions offer that language.
2. RME is offered stock at a 40% discount, if these are free loans, why offer at a discount as the price is irrelevant?
3. These are your typical Convertible Debenture PIPE deals and teh terms of these deals are in many cases worse than what an outside PIPE offering would receive.
4. RME has not filed beneficial ownership so you have no idea what level of shares they hold.
5. You call yourself a qualified accountant and yet you accept filings that identify customers that can not be located. Any qualified accountant would consider this a red flag.
6. Cash flow. It is irresponsible business to invest monies raised by offering your stock at a 40% discount. Moreso when the investments you are making are extremely risky. Being the first application in GetFugu (a product that has had no sales in two years) is not something you borrow capital you do not have for and do so at a significant discount. This is why you maintain some level of liquid capital, if you want to invest, you must have access to liquid capital.
Tell me BS, how much of their investments in Dicon and GetFugu came from raising capital from RME and what percentage of shareholder dilution transpired to raise this capital? Since RME is not an independant third party but the principes are the same as the company, whose interests are best being served; RME with discounted shares or SpongeTech shareholders?
Finally, I have an SEC investigation in my back pocket to test your theory that these customers exist. What proof do you have that these customers, and thus these sales, are in fact real?
AI
